In DeCaminada v Hammond, an unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals opinion, the Hammonds purchased a site condominium unit containing a residence. The residence subsequently burned. The Hammonds rebuilt, but the new home, although within the “building envelope” specified in the condominium documents, was larger than the first home and approximately 30 feet closer to the DeCaminada’s home. The Hammonds received approval for their new home design from the condominium association. The DeCaminadas sued, claiming a breach of the condominium documents, arguing that the replacement home had to substantially match the plans and specifications of the original home unless the membership unanimously agreed otherwise. As relevant to this dispute, the Bylaws provides "Any such reconstruction or repair shall be substantially in accordance with the Master Deed and the original plans and specifications for any damaged improvements located within the Unit unless the Co-owners shall unanimously decide otherwise.” The Bylaws also provided "No co-owner shall make alterations, modifications or changes in any of the units or common elements, limited or general, without the express written approval of the board of directors.” The trial court granted summary disposition to the Hammonds, and the DeCaminadas appealed.
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. While the first cited provision could support the DeCaminada’s argument, when read in context with the second provision, the court held that “plans and specifications” meant the original plans and specifications, such as building envelope and number of bedrooms specified elsewhere in the condominium documents. In context, the second provision allowed the board of directors to approve any building plans that conformed to the plans and specifications, even if those plans differed from the home that existed before the casualty.